Stephen Billing’s Blog

To ask whether organisations can learn is to ponder on the very nature of organisations themselves.

The previous post identified the difference between organisational learning – people learning in an organisational context, and learning organisations – where the organisation itself is seen as being able to learn.

Let’s take the latter argument that organisations can learn. If organisations can learn, then this is saying that an organisation is a living organism that has a mind that can think and learn from its experience. If an organisation is to be thought of as a living organism, then you would have to be able to point to its body and its consciousness.  

While one might argue that the top managers of the organisation do the thinking (in the form of strategy) for the organisation it is surely not accurate to say that an organisation is living in the sense that it has consciousness and can think for itself.

After all, an organisation has no physical body (an organisation is only a convenient legal construction) and no mind of its own. The decisions of the organisation are made through interaction between people, such as debate amongst the senior managers.

So, to me, saying that an organisation can learn, i.e. "Let’s create a learning organisation," amounts not only to saying that an organisation is a thing in itself, but to anthropomorphise the organisation – to give it the characteristics of a human being.

But an organisation is neither an inanimate thing, nor is it a physical living being with consciousness, choice and will.

The alternative of thinking that only individuals can learn within organisations is not very appealing either. It implies that individuals make independent autonomous decisions in isolation of others and ignores the impact of social influence and processes.

Hmmm, there must be an alternative.

I am grateful to Ralph Stacey for the stimulus of these ideas in his article "Learning as an Activity of Interdependent People" (subscription required)